The Big Sandy news. [volume] (Louisa, Ky.) 1885-1929, 1887-11-03
THE ANARCHISTS. PLEA


for and against the motion for
writ of error in the case Of the seven c6nz
demned Anarchists was begun yesterday
In the Federal Supreme Court, before the
full bench. Following is synopsis of the
plea OF Hon. ]. Randolph Tucker of Vir-
ginia, for the defense:
Tho questions upon this application were, |
first, have Federal questions been raised in this |
case; and, second does their character justify |
their review in this courts The act OF
1851 which has been deemed by this
court 10 be a substitute for the twenty-sixth
SECTION Of the judiciary act, gives juris.
dlction, first, where statute or authority exer-
cised under the State is repugnant TO the con-
stitution OF the United States; and second,
where q right privilege or immunity claimed
under the constitution is denied. Mr. Tuckerar
gued that this statute should be construed lit
orally TO the party making the appeal, since IL
was evidently the intention OF Its trainers 10
give free access TO this court. Therefore, II
any ltigant presents case in which the
question OF conflict between the rulings OF
N court in the enforcement OF any
law OF the State and the constitution
OF the United States arises, it is not neces-
sary that such litigant should establish nctnal
repugnanee TO the constitution, but only 10
show that there is conflict. The court said
he, Is city OF refuge from the ayenger OF blood.
and man who comes here and takes hold OF
the horns of the altar OF justice can not be re-
fused herring
Mr. Tucker then said that in the order made
bs the court in this case II was announced that
a writ OF error dill not issue from this court, as
q matter OF course, but only upon PROOF lhat
the petitioner was entitled TO II. He Thought,
however. that II the court had jurisdiction then
the writ must issue as a matter OF right and to
establish the Jurisdiction OF the court II was
only necessary to show conflict between tho
constitution and the rulings OF the court belo n.
Proceeding then to the merits OF the case,
Mr. Tucker said that II was not necessary that
| a law of State should be absolutely and on its
face unconstitutional in order to give TINS
court jurisdiction Of case under 1t. II
| law seemingly fair and just on its
| face should huye put upon II by the
State courts construction contrary TO
| The constitution that was enough 10 give this
court jurisd ction II any department OF q
State government violates the terms OF the
| fourteenth amendment 1t is the State which
violates it. Mr. Tucker then reviewed the
history OF the adoption OF the fourteenth
amendment and discussed the meaning OF the
words "due process of law" and said
| that although 1t had been held
| by this court that trial without in
dctment by grand jury might be due process
| OF laws and might be perfectly constitutional,
| Il had never been held or intimated that trial
| by petit jury could be dispensed with. II
seemed he said, to be every where conceded
| that due process OF law" required trial by u
Jury of ones peers. 1t is essential that thejury
| should be unbiased, unprecedented and impair
| tal and that 1t should not be class jury.
| Mr.. Tucker then asserted that the jury law
/ of the State OF Illinois was unconstitutional in
| that IL provided that the forming OF an opinion
/ from reports or from newspaper accounts
/ Of n certain transaction should not nee
| essarily disquaiify the person having such
i an opinion from sitting in judgment
| on that transaction as juror Ever
/ although the law might seem TO be fair ant
| lust If by construction and administration II
i were made TO deny TO the prisoners the righ
/ OF u trial by a far and impa oil jury ther
| such construction and administration con
| stitu,ed the law and made 1t unconsti
tutonal The construction given TO thu
law in this case was different from thu
| construction given to 1t in large mum
| Der OF other cases in the same State. He thei
referred TO the objections made by the defens
| Mt the trial to the rulings OF the court in IN
matter OF challenges and to various other rul
ings and decisions OF the trial court which hai
The effect of denying TO the prisoners fair tria
by an impartial jury.
Turning them to another question raised by
the case, which, he said, was new one in thi
court he quoted the second clause OF III
| fourteenth amendment TO the enec
that no State shall make or Ell
force ANY law which shall abridg
the privileges or immunitics OF citizen
OF the United States. Among the privilege
and immunities' thus guaranteed by the Sou
teenth amendment were, he contended, thos
set forth in the first ten amendments to the Fee
eral constitution such as the right of citizen
TO be secure in their persons, houses, paper
and effects against unreasonable searches IN
seizures Fourth amendmenU, and the imm'
nifty designated in the clause OF the lift
, amendment which provides that no perso
shall be compelled in any criminal case TO be
witness against himself.
Itwas his belief that unless the privilege
and immunit.es set forth in the first ten amen
ments were specifically said in terms TO
merely limitations of Federal power they we
privileges and immunities which come with
the pr yileges of the fourteenth nmendmel
and were guaranteed by 1t.
Justice Field-"Then you would bring q
! questions to this court. can not conceive
I any question which can not be brought here
, the fourteenth amendment makes the priv
leges and immunities' 10 which II refers inclu'
/, ali those of the first ten amendments
Mr.. Tucker said he would admit that 1t WI
) n new question, but that he should like
argue 1t. In the only two cases IN which IN
, question had been raised the context shove
that the purpose was TO limit the Federal po
i err Now make the assertion
said he, " that the right to be c
! empt from unreasonable searches al
seizures, the right to freedom.
speech, the right OF the citizen against Sc
accusation, and the right of the citizen not
: be twice tried by jury, which are secured
! him by virtue OF the constitution OF the Unit
: States, being so. the fourteenth amendme
comes in and says that no State shall ma
or enforce any law which aoridses the rights
Z, PRIVILEGES OF citizens
4 Turning 10 the action and rulings of the tr
court MIR Tucker said that the defense we
G driven to peremptory challenges In order TO
/, clude Jurors who should have been rejected
\ cause, and that thereby there was a'limitatl
: OF the right OF peremptory challenges viii
this court has held to be one OF the hlghest pr
ileges OF prisoner.
Mr. Tucker animadverted severely upon I
e ravapng OF the petitioners private papers n
II | effects which were used in evidence agail
# them. thus compelling thom TO be witness
a against themselves. He said the court ln
: well that he had no sympathy with anarchi
: or its purposes, but that did not prevent h
from asking justice for these men. ''rhe sa
IS constitution Is over us all. ask the court
+. interpose its shield and protect these men,
cause may need 1t myself ] know OF
anarchy abroad in this land which
American PEOPLE need fear except
nchy in the administration OF justice. Il
that when anarchy dons the ermine OF Just
n and adm nsters lynch law in violation oil
supreme law of the land. Whether the pris
ers point can be sustained IS question
can only decide after an examination OF
record and hearing Strike after you he
but don't strike before you hear
= Acknowledgement Hunt of Illinois,
IN lowed on behalf of the State His argun'
e WINS clear. calm and forcible, dealing OF
n with the cold, abstract propositions of
n involved. A synopsis is as follows:
al He claimed that to warrant the issuance
the writ 1t must appear from the record
That there was Federal question involv
and Q. It must appear from the record u
SO such question was raised and decided
y the State court. The record did
as show that any Federal question was
n, yolved. The prohibitions contained In
N arst ten amendments TO the constitution W
n L .I...- -. .ho ,,n.rara of the Eederal q